Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Alex Jones life Threatened On National TV

page: 6
74
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by SherlockH

Originally posted by Human_Alien

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


I do not disagree really. "Pop off" can be interpreted in different ways for sure. If we are honest, it probably was meant in the shoot him sense but we have no way of knowing that for sure so we can't say for definite one way or the other.

And he clearly is an attention seeker.

However, the scum on either side of this particular debate is rising to the surface for all of us to see and i have to say, from the outside (UK), it doesn't look pretty. Whatever happened to reasoned debate? I am fairly sure that the Founding Fathers would be shaking their heads at the nature of the current political discourse. Mind you, you could probably say the same for many current issues!



Gun control (which is what's on the table) has NOTING to do with banning the right to own guns.

I'm sure assault weapons were NOT considered when the Constitution was drafted. They were barely out of the gun-powder stage!

So man has taken total advantage of this amendment so now the government need to intervene. It's no ones fault but the idiots who don't want to live in cooperation with others.


Piers Morgan is also on my chit-list


Well in Iowa, Illinois, and New York they want to ban all semi-automatics. That is a lot of guns. Most guns in fact.

So yes it is about banning the right to own guns. I guess you think we should only own a flint lock right?



Frankly I don't think Humans are capable of owning a calculator.




posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien

Originally posted by TheMindWar


Jackass or not it doesnt matter when you have the truth on your side. If it wasnt for the infowars team I would not know much about the oakloahoma bombing carried out by the FBI and others.



And this has impacted your life, how?


Alex shows people why they shouldn't trust their government. Fine! Great.
But do you wonder why the government feels a greater need to be up everyone's butt then?

It's a counter productive service he's doing. Enlightening us with no plan of quelling it.

He is inciting a revolution and frankly, I want to finish up my years devoid a military presence.
It's the Alex Jones' who are making the military baby sit us NOT...the other way around.


Standing up to the government as AJ suggest only gets you more government to deal with.
Don't you people get it????
It's all psycho- babble.
I am not suggesting being complacent but I am suggesting AJ is of no significant value in the long run.



Was the Patriot Act because of Alex Jones?

I think they are up our butts, as you put it, because they seek to dominate the American people and want to eliminate those that might stand in their way.

edit on 1/9/13 by SherlockH because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Using the media in a biased and manipulative way by governments is old hat. Too bad that most sheeple take what they say as fact and don't bother to look deeper into the story. PM is the perfect shill for CNN as he manipulates his "guests" quite skillfully. He played Jones like a fiddle at the barn dance ( swing yer partner round and round ) and AJ did a perfect doe-cede-doe for the fans. I personally was very disappointed in his lack of control at what I thought was a perfect opportunity to put the truth out there. Yes he did make some very valid points, but most people were probably too mesmerized by his screaming red face with spittle flying everywhere to hear his words. Silence alone is worth a thousand words when facing the likes of these people. He could have slowly and surgically dismembered PM if he had kept a cool head. As for the implied threats to AJ and possibly his family ... same rule applies. Now lets just sit back and watch to other camp slowly dismantle itself with its own irrational rhetoric as how to deal with AJ.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien

Originally posted by SherlockH

Originally posted by Human_Alien

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


I do not disagree really. "Pop off" can be interpreted in different ways for sure. If we are honest, it probably was meant in the shoot him sense but we have no way of knowing that for sure so we can't say for definite one way or the other.

And he clearly is an attention seeker.

However, the scum on either side of this particular debate is rising to the surface for all of us to see and i have to say, from the outside (UK), it doesn't look pretty. Whatever happened to reasoned debate? I am fairly sure that the Founding Fathers would be shaking their heads at the nature of the current political discourse. Mind you, you could probably say the same for many current issues!



Gun control (which is what's on the table) has NOTING to do with banning the right to own guns.

I'm sure assault weapons were NOT considered when the Constitution was drafted. They were barely out of the gun-powder stage!

So man has taken total advantage of this amendment so now the government need to intervene. It's no ones fault but the idiots who don't want to live in cooperation with others.


Piers Morgan is also on my chit-list


Well in Iowa, Illinois, and New York they want to ban all semi-automatics. That is a lot of guns. Most guns in fact.

So yes it is about banning the right to own guns. I guess you think we should only own a flint lock right?



Frankly I don't think Humans are capable of owning a calculator.


Well I own a gun and a calculator and frankly I don't care if you think I should own either one, because you're not going to take either.
edit on 1/9/13 by SherlockH because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 11:26 AM
link   
OP I'm glad you brought this thread to the forum, I was just talking about this lastnight in another thread on AJ and Piers.

It's disgusting what passes for acceptable programming on a news network these days. How is it not a big deal that this happened? Are the US networks really so delusional as to allow a British national on American airwaves to discuss American politics with what can only be seen as complete disdain for Americas founding ideals?

And when the British man allows a veiled threat towards an American citizen on American programming in front of American audiences, why are the Americans eating it up without saying a word? Is this sort of behavior really allowed on the news in the USA? What happened to media accountability? Did it ever exist?

It's never been so obvious the agenda that CNN is pushing.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Dreamer99
 


If I may ask, do you not think your view on this matter is that of disgust because those folks at infowars.com sold the story to you in such a way so as to cause to see this as an "attack" on AJ? I'd be willing to wager that had IW not made a video about this, people would have overlooked this completely and just continued with their lives.

This isn't about being British or being American. PM was employed by CNN to do a job, and in my honest opinion, I believe he does it well. (Yes, I know, bring on the hate! I can take it.
)

Accusing CNN of having an agenda when AJ does the same thing in a much more extremist way raises quite an ugly double standard. Every major MSM outlet has some sort of agenda. It's run by humans and in case you didn't already know, humans are very subjective in their points of views. Again, I've heard the same (if not sometimes far worse) things said about atheists, homosexuals, jews and other groups said on Fox News. And yes, those opposed to them do cry foul when they hear it too. But saying the words and actually acting on those words are mutually exclusive, even more so when those words are said in the spirit of satire in order to make a point. That is what freedom of speech is all about.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 11:39 AM
link   
I always love the "it was a joke" after saying something 'wrong'. Biggest cop-out use ever and I dislike it so much.

A threat was made, how credible still needs to be determined by authorities. I know the same "it was a joke" crowd, will laugh at it needing to be looked at by authorities, but what if something happened. How many times we as a populace let something slide by and then regret it later on.

I guarantee if AJ would have said something similar in the interview (not a debate when one side ask questions and the other answers, lets get that straight) he would have been arrested in NYC. Why did Piers not answer any points/questions raised by AJ?

Freedom of speech applies here, and I am one to say that words are not actions. But when words get "checked out" for certain peoples threats over another is wrong, its either you do it for every threat no matter how 'jokingly' said or none.
edit on 1/9/2013 by GaucheDroite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by GaucheDroite
 




Why did Piers not answer any points/questions raised by AJ?


Are you serious? Perhaps because AJ was too busy talking over PM to give him a chance to respond. All AJ did was bulldoze the conversation, I think PM only got the chance to say about 10 coherent words in that "debate".

But that is not what this thread is about. This is about the alleged threats on AJ's life after the interview.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by CosmicBob
reply to post by GaucheDroite
 




Why did Piers not answer any points/questions raised by AJ?


Are you serious? Perhaps because AJ was too busy talking over PM to give him a chance to respond. All AJ did was bulldoze the conversation, I think PM only got the chance to say about 10 coherent words in that "debate".

But that is not what this thread is about. This is about the alleged threats on AJ's life after the interview.


So why did you cherry pick out of my comment on about the only thing not on topic?



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by GaucheDroite
 


That is a fair question. To be honest, I was just sharing my brief view on that before I referred back to the main thread. Naughty me!



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by SherlockH

Was the Patriot Act because of Alex Jones?

I think they are up our butts, as you put it, because they seek to dominate the American people and want to eliminate those that might stand in their way.

edit on 1/9/13 by SherlockH because: (no reason given)



We can keep circling around this topic forever because you're missing my point.

If one postures themselves as a 'we're not going to take it' bully then what do you expect the government to do? Have some sort of epiphany and say 'gee, they have a point. I think we should back off"
Of course not.
It's only going to make them be more guarded and prepared.

I swear to gawd I hope Alex Jones is a paid shill because anyone with half a brain cell would see the perilous situation their actions are creating for everyone else!!!!!

So in other words, when AJ gets his lemmings to follow him to Bohemia Grove every year, the attendees should:
1) welcome him inside?
2) offer him a lawn chair while bull-horning and inciting others?
3) create stiffer security.

If you answered '3' then....don't you see the perpetual cycle he's keeping us in? He is an idiot (or shill)



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Say whatever you want about AJ, this type of rhetoric is insidious and heinous, not to mention illegal and hypocritical. I



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Baguul
Say whatever you want about AJ, this type of rhetoric is insidious and heinous, not to mention illegal and hypocritical. I


"insidious and heinous" - Why? Because AJ's own organisation (predictably) saw an opportunity and sold it to their audiences as such? No one actually shot AJ or any of his family did they? This is a victimless "crime" made by a person exercising their right to freedom of speech.

"illegal" - Please can you point me to the law stating this as illegal. In fact, I recall a law supporting it. It's called the 1st Amendment. If the individual you're accusing had said it as a call to action (as opposed to satire and irony) to the viewers of the show, then I think there would be good reason get upset about it because then it could be directly attributed as malicious and with ill-intent.

"hypocritical" - Why is it hypocritical?



edit on 9-1-2013 by CosmicBob because: Fixed some wording



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by CosmicBob

Originally posted by Baguul
Say whatever you want about AJ, this type of rhetoric is insidious and heinous, not to mention illegal and hypocritical. I


"insidious and heinous" - Why? Because AJ's own organisation (predictably) saw an opportunity and sold it to their audiences as such? No one actually shot AJ or any of his family did they? This is a victimless "crime" made by a person exercising their right to freedom of speech.

"illegal" - Please can you point me to the law stating this as illegal. In fact, I recall a law supporting it. It's called the 1st Amendment. If the individual you're accusing had said it as a call to action (as opposed to satire and irony) to the viewers of the show, then I think there would be good reason get upset about it because then it could be directly attributed as malicious and with ill-intent.

"hypocritical" - Why is it hypocritical?



edit on 9-1-2013 by CosmicBob because: Fixed some wording


So if someone says something about the US president along the same lines, do they get looked into by the Secret Service? I think so.

Unfortunately saying "it was a joke" afterwards is too late as the offender already said it. At minimum Piers and the other commentators should be looked at officially, sure nothing will come out of it since the elites got the police under wraps. Its the principle of it though.

Also it is criminal to threaten someone regardless of the 1st Amendment.


California Penal Code 422 PC defines the crime of "criminal threats" (formerly known as terrorist threats). A "criminal threat" is when you threaten to kill or physically harm someone and that person is thereby placed in a state of reasonably sustained fear for his/her safety or for the safety of his/her immediate family, the threat is specific and unequivocal and you communicate the threat verbally, in writing, or via an electronically transmitted device.
www.shouselaw.com...
edit on 1/9/2013 by GaucheDroite because: (no reason given)


Yes this is California, but I am sure it applies to many states.
edit on 1/9/2013 by GaucheDroite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 12:38 PM
link   
It was a heated debate and AJ came in swinging. That made the liberals nervous and since they can't stand losing the gun debate they have to save face with some melodramatic bs. Lets not sensationalise the video and take it the wrong way.

Alex Jones is a bit of a nut but he gets the message across better than jessie ventura and most other truthers. I bet the shills can't stand the guy for a minute, but the media needs people like him to make occasional visits to the studio just to keep the "fair and balanced" slogan alive.

I have seen him confront lots of nwo folks!.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by GaucheDroite

Originally posted by CosmicBob

Originally posted by Baguul
Say whatever you want about AJ, this type of rhetoric is insidious and heinous, not to mention illegal and hypocritical. I


"insidious and heinous" - Why? Because AJ's own organisation (predictably) saw an opportunity and sold it to their audiences as such? No one actually shot AJ or any of his family did they? This is a victimless "crime" made by a person exercising their right to freedom of speech.

"illegal" - Please can you point me to the law stating this as illegal. In fact, I recall a law supporting it. It's called the 1st Amendment. If the individual you're accusing had said it as a call to action (as opposed to satire and irony) to the viewers of the show, then I think there would be good reason get upset about it because then it could be directly attributed as malicious and with ill-intent.

"hypocritical" - Why is it hypocritical?



edit on 9-1-2013 by CosmicBob because: Fixed some wording


So if someone says something about the US president along the same lines, do they get looked into by the Secret Service? I think so.

Unfortunately saying "it was a joke" afterwards is too late as the offender already said it. At minimum Piers and the other commentators should be looked at officially, sure nothing will come out of it since the elites got the police under wraps. Its the principle of it though.


AJ, despite what he may think of himself, is not the US president. That job title comes with far greater responsibility than I suspect AJ could ever hope to even have a wet dream about. Because it is a sadly large occupational hazard that the president will often have those in such extreme disagreement with a president's politics that they are willing to take violent action to express said disagreement, a serious organisation assembled to investigate all statements mentioned (even in jest) regarding the security of said president is unfortunately necessary. AJ is not in this position. I'm sure he gets death threats all the time. But I believe that the worst that can happen to him is those most reasonably opposed to him laugh him off as a loon and move on with more constructive things to do with their time.

I'm saying it was intended as a joke because that is what it was. Anyone familiar with satire and ironical humour can see that, an in my view, that should be everyone here. He was using the ridiculous (I'm assuming also a "joke") challenge by AJ to PM to take him on in a ring to make a point of irony about that which AJ so vehemently defends. Why is this so hard to see?

What would you be saying to me right now, if AJ was saying that about PM and I got all up in arms about it being heinous and illegal and all that? Would you agree with me, or would you be saying what I'm saying right now? In my opinion, the latter of the two approaches is the correct approach to both the real scenario (CNN) and my hypothetical scenario.

It would be scarier if AJ had actually said a similar thing about anyone, however, because he is actually a gun supporter and it would be harder to put it past him that he would actually shoot someone for disagreeing with him than the individual who was talking on PM. Even so, I doubt he could resort to that.
edit on 9-1-2013 by CosmicBob because: Fixed some grammatical errors



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
To anyone who isnt using this to push an agenda it was obviously said tongue in cheek, its a bit melodramatic to say his life was threatened


I hope his children are OK to, the guy is either a fantastic actor and shill or has a few screws loose.
And I like the guy!!!

As for PMs firing in the UK, do any of you know the facts behind it?
Nothing insidious or dodgy, his paper ran some photos that were later proven to be fake, he didnt fake them nor did he write the story. He was editor so he was fired, quite innocent really


I am sure if the the shoe was in another foot you would use it to condemn guns even further. You are a bad troll.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 12:49 PM
link   
I have already said something about judging people by who and/or what they are against, e.g. if some Atheist, Luciferian, Marxist~Socialist is against something or someone, it is a pretty safe bet I am on the opposing side of the street from that person and am FOR who/what they are against. Moreover and in my case, if someone is against something or someone I believe in, it is likely they are an Atheist, Marxist~Socialist and/or a lengthy list of other types that I have no use for but don't want to get censored for listing more specifically.

As for Alex Jones, I have known him personally since the early 90s and he is friends of my brothers in Austin, as I am one of those Texans whose family fought Santa Ana and more specifically, I am a direct descendent of the last messenger out of the Alamo and first Mayor of San Antonio; I am and we are of the same as Alex Jones and we know him as a God Fearing Man of serious Honesty, Integrity and Conviction who loves our country and has played an important role in educating and waking people up to the enemies of our Republic.

I know him well enough that I am sure he was not and is not frightened for himself; he gets death threats almost daily and frankly, going after him would not be any kind of walk in the park but I know it bothers him having his children hear people talking about shooting him.

This point having been touched upon, if you give Alex a serious listen for a week and still think badly of him, please go stand on the other side of the street and be counted for what you believe, just as I do.

Here is some more Alex Jones
edit on 9-1-2013 by MajorKarma because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 12:57 PM
link   
I was quite pissed off by this 'throw-away remark'.

I truly believe Alex Jones really got Morgan's back up. He's a very full on guy, he goes at you with all (pardon the expression) guns blazing, and faced under that kind of barrage of words, I would find it difficult not to get stressed.

However, there are absolutely no words! Whether he said it because he hadn't cooled off yet, implying that shooting someone - after a gun control debate, no less, on live TV would be a good idea... Nuh-uh.
Piers Morgan is a douchebag of the highest degree, I've never liked him.
This just reinforced my feeling toward him.

I don't think it was a direct threat, but just a pathetic low blow. However, with the amount of loonies in this world, I wonder how many people would take the suggestion to heart, and decide they want to do Piers a favour?



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 01:01 PM
link   
I really like Alex Jones. No matter what the others say, some of the points they make are the very reasons I like him, he's a nutjob, he gets riled up. GOOD We all need to.

I don't even see eye to eye on his politics, but I understand his constitutionalist ethics. Im more left than the NDP in Canada, but not police state so, no, wide awake sovereign citizens who are active in co-creating a free and equal world, not cookie cutter/beehive model, but freedom, and sharing, because we're not dog eat dog primitives, and equality, work of equal value, important. I'm not a conservative/republican, consider much of that to be chauvanism But, the so called liberals are so scarey right now, so you have to say no to all of this, none of it is the right thing.

Irregardless of his politics, everything he stands up for is the right thing, freedom, that unlawful, corporate laws that bypass constitution, that bypass our flesh and blood rights to be real humans covered by constitution, they use Navy Law/Corporate Law/Colors of Law to remove your personhood??? Its all unlawful. If a legislation does not stand on the backbone of the constiution and follow basic ABC's of common law, ie. the litany of "thou shalt not harm" (and slavery is major harm), then its not legal.

And obeying an unlawful legislation is also a crime.

When people call him a nutjob, maybe its because he uses a bullhorn and gets upset. GOOD. I don't believe in violence to overthrow corruption. But man oh man do I believe in speaking up Loud and Clear and Never Tolerating Corruption and Abuse, and being so loud and so upset they sit down and shut up. Never follow bad orders. Never obey unlawful corrrupt laws. Non Violent, but very loud and assertive Non-Cooperation so they can't row the boat, for they're up the creek of public awareness and sovereignity, without a paddle.

I love the man. He's wonderful. I especially like some of his rants. They're right on! We're all supposed to feel like that.

Serve and Protect!

As for this death threat.

Isn't it highly illegal?

Shouldn't some law enforcement officers show up?

I mean come on!

We couldn't get away with that, now could we?






top topics



 
74
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join